42 Days: Health Care

Forgive me if my understanding is overly simplistic, but it seems to me that those with health insurance are paying high prices for often inadequate coverage because there are so many people without insurance at all. Inevitably, these people need some kind of health care treatment--usually just big stuff... they don't go in for the routine, and preventative care because, well, they have no insurance!--and the hospitals must treat them, even though they can't pay for their treatment. Of course I think the hospitals are doing the right thing, but someone has to pay the bills. As it turns out, we pay for it. 'We' meaning everyone who does pay for medical treatment, with or without insurance. The prices for everything we need goes up to cover the cost of treatment for those who don't pay. And it's all only going to get worse, especially in this economy where more people are unemployed (no insurance from an employer, no money to pay for private insurance, no money to pay for out-of-pocket medical bills).

I am not in favor of socialized medicine. Capitalism is very often the basis for innovation. I worry that socializing health care in our country will negatively affect medical advancements. Lots of countries have socialized medicine; it is more effective in some than others. But even in the countries where it is extremely effective and the care is top-notch, they are benefiting from the research done by our capitalist, privatized medical system. Even if we could guarantee that the government organized socialized medicine here the way it is in Finland (as opposed to, say, Spain), what would happen down the road if innovation lapsed and there was no America for us to lean on for medical advancements?

That said, I think McCain's idea about giving every family $5,000 to cover health care is laughable. Even if he could guarantee the money was spent on health care, it's not enough to get private insurance for most families. It's not enough to cover the medical bills for an ongoing illness or a serious medical emergency. It's not enough to turn the tide of medical costs or insurance prices and coverage.

It is consistent, though. McCain's plans are regularly limited by short-term thinking: band-aids to lure voters. It's not enough to say, as he does in so many instances, "I'm in favor of solutions. Elect me, and I will fix it." An extra $5,000 with your tax return doesn't sound bad to anyone. It may help with your most recent hospital stay, but it won't support a collapsing system. Government money should be put towards long-term solutions.

So, while I'm against socialized medicine (I liked Mitt Romney's plan for health care best), we need long-term solutions immediately. The Urban Institute/Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (TPC) performed an evaluation of each of the candidates health care plans for cost and coverage outcomes this past May. The headline for it reads "Obama health plan outperforms McCain plan in coverage and efficiency." It's a brief and straight-forward report. To pique your interest, here are the "punch lines of the TPC analysis":

• Efficiency. Over the 10-year period analyzed by the TPC, Senator Obama's plan provides far greater "bang-for-the-buck," spending far less per capita for its coverage of the uninsured population.

• Cost. The costs of the plans over the 10-year period are in the same ballpark: the Obama plan costs roughly $1.6 trillion, while the McCain plan costs $1.3 trillion (the Obama plan spends roughly 20% more than McCain’s).

• Coverage. The Obama plan makes a much bigger dent in covering the uninsured population. On average over the 10-year period, the Obama plan covers over 47% of the forecasted uninsured population, while the McCain plan covers less than 5%.

Also, I feel obliged to mention I did find where McCain discusses his position on abortion on his website.